NSQHS Standards (second edition)

NSQHS Standards (second edition)

The second edition of the NSQHS Standards was endorsed by Health Ministers in June 2017, and released in November 2017.

The second edition addresses gaps identified in the first edition, including mental health and cognitive impairment, health literacy, end-of-life care, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health.

It also updates the evidence for actions, consolidates and streamlines standards and actions to make them clearer and easier to implement.

Assessment to the second edition will commence from 1 January 2019. Health service organisations will be informed of the transition arrangements well in advance of implementation.

The second edition was developed by the Commission in consultation with the Australian Government state and territory partners, consumers, the private sector and other stakeholders.

Advisories

Information for consumers

Three fact sheets have been developed for consumers about the NSQHS Standards. Developed in consultation with consumers and the state-based health consumer organisations, the fact sheets share advice on what consumers can expect in each of the following areas.

NSQHS Standards Monitoring Tool

The Commission developed the monitoring tool as part of a suite of resources to assist health service organisations to implement the National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards (second edition). This monitoring tool allows health service organisations to track the progress of implementing each standard. It should be used together with the relevant NSQHS Standards Guide and the Accreditation Workbook.

Find Us

Newsletter

Sign up

Sign up to receive regular emails about safety and quality in health care.

Choose a list*

Your Full Name*

Your Email Address*

I agree to the Commission collecting my information.*

Yes

The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care collects personal information when the information is necessary for, or directly related to, the Commission’s functions or activities.
All personal information is held and treated in accordance with the Australian Privacy Principles under the Privacy Act 1988 and the Commission’s Privacy Policy: https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/privacy/

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) considers there is a lack of adequate scientific evidence for it to be satisfied that the risks to patients associated with the use of single incision mini‐slings for the treatment of SUI outweigh their benefits. These products have been removed from the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG)

* Grades of Recommendation

This pathway is adapted from UroGynaecological Society of Australasia (UGSA) Surgical treatment of SUI pathway (2016)

In the short-term there are similar success rates for retropublic and transobturator

A

Obturator tapes slightly quicker, with less blood loss, bladder perforation and voiding dysfunction difficulties. Most of these differences were small and the complications are readily able to be managed.

A

However in the medium term (>5 years) the reoperation for recurrent SUI greater in obturator group and a small number developed groin pain (3-4%) that is difficult to treat.

B

Retropubic considered as the preferred procedure with transobturator reserved for those patients with a hostile abdomen

C

* Grades of Recommendation

This pathway is adapted from UroGynaecological Society of Australasia (UGSA) Surgical treatment of SUI pathway (2016)

In the short‐term there are similar success rates for retropubic and transobturator mid urethral slings

A

Obturator tapes are slightly quicker, with less blood loss, bladder perforation and voiding dysfunction difficulties. Most of these differences were small and the complications are readily able to be managed.

A

However in the medium term (>5 years) the reoperation for recurrent SUI greater in obturator group and a small number developed groin pain (3-4%) that is difficult to treat.

B

Retropubic considered as the preferred procedure with transobturator reserved for those patients with a hostile abdomen

C

* Grades of Recommendation

This pathway is adapted from UroGynaecological Society of Australasia (UGSA) Surgical treatment of SUI pathway (2016)

Similar success rates compared to MUS with longer operating time and possibly higher voiding dysfunction; fascial sling has lower rates of chronic pelvic pain, no risk of erosion or extrusion, and higher rates of post‐operative morbidity